Kerala High Court
Sreejith P vs State Of Kerala on 26 February, 2019
Author: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
Bench: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
TUESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 7TH PHALGUNA, 1940
Crl.MC.No. 8253 of 2018
CRIME NO. 470/2018 OF PARIYARAM POLICE STATION, KANNUR
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 3:
1 SREEJITH P., AGED 38 YEARS,
S/O.GANGADHARAN NAMBIAR, COMPANY EMPLOYEE,
SOPANAM, NEAR TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, RAMATHALI,
RAMANTHALI AMSOM AND DESOM, PAYYANNUR TALUK,
KANNUR DISTRICT.
2 GANGADHARAN NAMBIAR E.P., AGED 70 YEARS,
EX SERVICEMAN, SOPANAM, NEAR TELEPHONE EXCHANGE,
RAMANTHALI, RAMANTHALI AMSOM AND DESOM,
PAYYANNUR TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.
3 BHARGAVI P., AGED 65 YEARS,
W/O.GANGADHARAN NAMBIAR.E.P., HOUSE MAKER,
SOPANAM, NEAR TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, RAMATHALI,
RAMANTHALI AMSOM AND DESOM, PAYYANNUR TALUK,
KANNUR DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.M.V.AMARESAN
RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682 031.
2 BAVITHA P.,
D/O.DHAGYANATH, AGED 28 YEARS,
PARALLEL COLLEGE TEACHER, PULLAYI KODI HOUSE,
PACHENI PARIYARAM AMSOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK,
KANNUR DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD
SRI REMESH CHAND PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.02.2019,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 8253 of 2018 2
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('the Code" for brevity).
2. The 2nd respondent is the de facto complainant in Crime No. 470/2018 of the Pariyaram Medical College Police Station. The 1st petitioner is the husband of the 2nd respondent and petitioners 2 & 3 are his near relatives. They are being proceeded against for having committed offence punishable under Section 498A r/w. Section 34 of the IPC.
3. According to the prosecution, the petitioners subjected the 2nd respondent to ill-treatment and cruelty demanding dowry.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that at the instance of well wishers and family members, the parties have decided to put an end to their discord and have decided to part ways. Reliance is placed on Annexure-3 mediation agreement dated 3.11.2018 to substantiate the said contention. It is urged that the dispute is purely private in nature.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent asserts that the disputes inter se have been settled and the Crl.MC.No. 8253 of 2018 3 continuance of criminal proceedings will only result in gross inconvenience and hardship. It is submitted that the 2 nd respondent has no objection in allowing the prayer sought for.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor has obtained instructions. He submitted that the statement of the 2 nd respondent has been recorded and the State has no objection in terminating the proceedings as it involves no public interest.
7. I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the materials on record.
8. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [(2012) 10 SCC 303] and in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab [(2014) 6 SCC 466], the Apex Court has laid down that in appropriate cases, the High Court can take note of the amicable resolution of disputes between the victim and the wrongdoer to put an end to the criminal proceedings. Further in Jitendra Raghuvanshi & Others v. Babita Raghuvanshi & Another [(2013) 4 SCC 58], it was observed that it is the duty of the courts to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes. If the parties ponder over their faults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law, the courts should not hesitate to exercise its powers under Section 482 of the Code. Permitting such proceedings to continue Crl.MC.No. 8253 of 2018 4 would be nothing, but an abuse of process of court. The interest of justice also require that the proceedings be quashed.
9. Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am of the considered view that this Court will be well justified in invoking its extraordinary powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings.
In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-2 FIR in Crime No.470 of 2018 registered at the Pariyaram Medical College Police Station, Kannur and all proceedings pursuant thereto pending against the petitioners are quashed.
SD/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,
JUDGE
IAP //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE
Crl.MC.No. 8253 of 2018 5
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF PRIVATE COMPLAINT DATED
10/7/2018 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
BEFORE THE HON'BLE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS
MAGISTRATE, PAYYANNUR.
ANNEXURE 2 TRUE COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO.470/18 OF
PARIYARAM MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE 3 TRUE COPY OF MEDIATION AGREEMENT DATED 03/11/2018 EXECUTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER AND 2ND RESPONDENT IN M.C.25/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES BEFORE THE MEDIATION SUB CENTRE, KANNUR.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
NIL